Wondering why so small? Poland seriously considers retrofitting its existing thermal power plants running on coal with small nuclear reactors, thus preserving all the existing generation, heating and distribution infrastructure, minus coal. 30 MW sounds like perfect replacement for the existing coal reactors.
Additionally, a number of chemical plants consider obtaining power and heating (hot steam) from nuclear power, and this design seems to respond to this demand perfectly. It's also very safe.
> The conceptual design of a new Polish high-temperature research reactor, developed by the National Centre for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), has been unveiled. Developed with input from Japan, the reactor could be built in Poland at the NCBJ.
> The helium-cooled reactor - measuring 12.3 metres in height and with a diameter of 4.1 metres - will provide 30 MW of thermal power. It will feature a prismatic-type core consisting of hexagonal blocks. Moderated with graphite, the reactor will use TRISO-type fuel with 8-12% enrichment. The primary forced circulation helium cooling circuit will operate at a pressure of 6 MPa. The helium temperature at the reactor outlet will be 750°C, at the inlet 325°C. The reactor will feature passive and active safety systems, with a planned lifetime of 60 years.
As for fuel, global market is surprisingly large and diverse, with a few dozens of countries mining it and a dozen of reliable suppliers available. Russia isn't even the largest supplier!
Paradoxically, the uranium market is much better from supply chain security point of view because uranium volumes for a single plant are measured in tons per year, rather than millions of tons as with gas or coal.
@kravietz it means that even now, when the war is ragging, Rosatom own Uranium One for example, that produces in Kazakhstan, US and Tanzania. Corporation is not really limited by the borders of it's country.
And in general energy security of nuclear market still keeps you dependent on some dodgy players many of whom love authoritarian rule. The more dependency - the more mechanisms to influence political situation in the country.
Don't get me wrong. Coal is shit but nuclear is not really a solution at the current state, taking in account that ecological catastrophe is going to make state systems even more reactionary in coming decades.
I never cease to marvel at the ingenuity displayed in finding reasons why "nuclear is not the solution at this time / in this situation / etc".
It's almost as though there is an underlying conviction that this technology represents… ah, what was it again? "A fundamentally inappropriate exercise of human intelligence," that's the one!
The war in Ukraine, and Russia's political relevance, all arise from control of FOSSIL, not nuclear, fuels.
@publius@kravietz so let's use another "solution" of centralized energy as if we don't wanna learn that centralization is one of the ways to destroy political and social freedoms.
It’s a bit of misconception or simplification. Centralisation of electricity generation in terms of ownership may result in an abusive monopoly. Or may not, if the electric utility company is properly regulated by state. In small countries there’s plenty of natural monopolies that exist and do their job. So the question of centralisation or decentralisation is really about structure of ownership and governance, rather than physical power plants.
The best example: many people believe there’s no better example of decentralisation than rooftop PV panels. Except 70% of global PV panel manufacturing is controlled by Chinese companies, which receive state subsidies, so effectively they are controlled by state.
But in engineering and business terms centralisation has one major advantage: efficiency. A huge 3 GW power plant (coal, nuclear or hypothetically PV) has much higher efficiency and produces cheaper energy than 100 smaller 30 MW power plants.
That’s one of the most common misconceptions, or possibly even manipulations, when experts speak of “PV being cheap” and quote $50/MWh of utility PV (huge, centralised PV farms per NEA 2020) but what people hear is that residential rooftop PV will have the same price - when in reality they cost $150/MWh specifically due to decentralisation.
By that logic we should also be getting our water from wells, and disposing of our sewage in septic fields.
NEWS FLASH! That doesn't work for densely-populated areas characteristic of advanced, prosperous societies.
Pooling of resources is one of the best ways to assure universal access to basic services, if not in fact the only way ― and it also allows for taking advantage of economies of scale, thus giving everyone MORE access.
The UK built up the world's greatest nuclear industry in the 1960s, and almost as quickly destroyed it again, until they can't build new nuclear power stations domestically, and their remaining indigenously-built stations are owned by Electricite de France.
It's one of those things which leaves me flabbergasted at national incompetence.
I don't think it was entirely incompetence. 1980's in the UK were time of massive denationalization of industry.
As I see it, there were numerous causes for it, including idea of globalization whereas you can essentially order anything anywhere at the best price, and you don't have to own it.
On the other spectrum there were the trade unions, which went as far as to firemen (!) strike in 1977 which lasted for nine weeks (!). It was not even stopped even to for a fire in a hospital in London, which was put out by army and civil defense (some firefighters joined later at their personal initiative).
It was a huge shock not only for the society but also for the government, especially as it came after a wave of coal industry strikes. As I see it, the British public ultimately didn't want to have anything to do with publicly-owned enterprises and simply privatised everything.
The risks of supply chain delegation were not yet widely known...
@kravietz@derle@bad_immigrant@publius Privatization of infrastructure and natural monopolies is a good way to destroy a country, as has since been aptly demonstrated.
France would be better off building CANDU plants. That gets around the problems which arise with reactor pressure vessel manufacturing, and the reactors are more efficient users of recycled uranium from fuel reprocessing.
Also, the reactors can be located close to cities, to serve industrial and domestic uses of heat. As proven at Pickering in 1983, even a tube rupture under full power is not a catastrophic failure.
Add comment